MA Anti SSM Amendment Fails 157-39

From the Boston Globe article:

A year after the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex marriages began taking place, the Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.

After less than two hours of debate, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure, far more than the majority vote needed.
The moment the vote was announced, cheers erupted from the gay marriage supporters who watched the proceedings from the House chamber's public gallery...

The large vote against the measure after passing 105-92 last year was stunning. Some noted that SSM has been in effect for a year and none of those terrible things happened that opponents had direly predicted.

"Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees, an East Longmeadow Republican...

In the year-plus since the weddings began taking place, more than 6,100 couples had married.

Anti-gay propaganda based on bogus research doesn't stand up to the light of reality.

Opponents are now gathering signatures for an amendment that would ban both SSM and civil unions. This must garner 25% of the votes in joint sessions of the legislature in two consecutive years before going on the ballot, in 2008 at the soonest. This ideological position which allows no rights for gays whatsoever is doomed if it ever gets to a popular vote. With only 39 votes in support of the compromise amendment in this resent vote, I wonder if the harsher proposal will even get the 50 votes it needs in the two years to come.

Once filed, petitions for the proposed amendment are a matter of public record. In a new take on the exercise of democracy, enterprising individuals propose putting the names and addresses of signers on a web site. Neighbors might then ask signers why they support this anti-gay position. Proponents of the amendment are howling about this, claiming that this might lead to harassment. Are persons not to be held accountable for their actions?